The ethics concerning the World Bank Nairobi water utilities study is murky. (a thread on Primum non nocere)

In experimental economics, we have a clear rule against experiments involving deception. Any experiments that engage in deception are considered unpublishable.

1/9 https://twitter.com/Undercoverhist/status/1292449648515452929

Experimental economists also have clear rules to avoid losses, stemming from the idea that students should never leave the lab in a worse state than upon entering it. This has made the study of things like lying and loss aversion difficult to do...

2/9

In Psychology, there are rules to avoid studying certain emotions, such as shame, because once triggered, they are nearly impossible to remove, hence making the students worse off as a result of the study.

3/9

Importantly, however, researchers have figured out clever ways to study these issues without violating these rules. That is key! So asking for a rule of "Primum non nocere" (first, do no harm) in field experiments is not unreasonable/unscientific.

4/9

One major difference in the way that studies are conducted in developed countries is that there is increased scrutiny and oversight. For example, in a study we planned recently in the UK, the proposal was shared with potential subjects to get their objections.

5/9

I disagree that papers with murky ethics should have expanded discussion sections on ethics. The rule should be that any paper that has the potential to harm subjects without their consent should be unpublishable.

Seinfeld discussed a similar issue...

6/9

"There are many things you can point to as proof that the human is not smart. But my personal favorite would have to be that we needed to invent the helmet. What was happening, apparently, was that we were involved in a lot of activities that were cracking our heads..."

7/9

"We chose not to avoid doing those activities but, instead, to come up with some sort of device to help us enjoy our head-cracking lifestyles."

Lets stop this head-cracking lifestyle. Stop putting people in harms way for the sake of the "greater good".

8/9

Raking the guys who did the study over the coals is not useful. There need to be clear disincentives to conduct interventions that can directly harm people without their consent. We should be clear that our journals are not appropriate for such work.

Primum non nocere!!

9/9